TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Column: We owe it to victims to have minimum and mandatory sentencing

The crimes committed against Fiona Doyle and Detective Garda Adrian Donohue deserve sufficient punishment – and the pressure needs to be placed back onto criminals, says criminologist John O’Keefe.

John O'Keefe

IT IS DIFFICULT to know what words can add significantly to the chorus of anger since the appalling death of Detective Garda Adrian Donohue. It had been an unwritten code that gardaí and security personnel generally were off bounds for even the most unhinged – but no more. There was also a time that the thought of a father systematically raping his daughter was too vile an assault to even comprehend, let alone imagine could occur. Yet, thanks to women like Fiona Doyle, we now know this simply not to be the case. Tragically, in Ireland 2013 there is no deed, however heinous, to which the new criminal untermensch will not turn their attention.

Justice system

Yet we hope that a developed civilization like ours will at least have the wit to then ensure that justice is done for both victim and society when such acts are committed. It should not be unreasonable to assume that any workable criminal justice system must be comprised of three main elements – namely, incarceration (for a sufficient period of time), punishment (which imprisonment provides through loss of freedom), and robust offender rehabilitation (both in jail and post-release). When all of these are properly in place, society has its best chance of ensuring deterrence from crime. In Ireland today we have none – nothing works.

If you don’t believe me, ask Fiona Doyle and her family, or the wife and children of Detective Garda Adrian Donohue, who know that whenever the perpetrators are brought to task for their deed, they will never serve the time that their crime deserves.

Judge Carney may have made something of a pig’s ear of the Patrick O’Brien rape case – and indeed he has said as much himself. Yet the bizarre sentencing tapestry in Ireland is so much more than just a good judge having a bad day. When it comes to sentencing, precedent binds the judiciary’s hands, as does the offender centric and risible notion of “proportionality,” coupled with little or no legislative will.

Middle class criminals

Put simply, prison sentences cannot and are not handed down of sufficient length to deter criminal activity. And if you’re middle class with a bit of an income, chances are you’ll receive even more favourable treatment at the hands of the system – ask “middle class, middle aged” sex offender Anthony Lyons. It appears €75,000 and you’ve got yourself a mere 16 weeks for the terrifying sexual assault of a young woman.

Indeed, when it comes to sexual offences, courts in Ireland show breathtakingly leniency. In Australia, the average prison term served for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault is more than six years. According to US Department of Justice figures, across the United States you are likely to serve on average a five-and-a-half year jail term for a “high-end” sexual assault. In England and Wales, a minimum of four years is recommended for such an offence under sentencing guidelines.

The legislative answer may be closer than we think . The British Criminal Justice Act 2003 offers a potential model upon which fresh sentencing legislative provision with regard to mandatory sentencing per se could be considered in this jurisdiction.

Garda Detective Adrian Donohue

For adults aged 21 and over there are four starting points depending on the nature of the murder – from 15 years to a whole life order. The murder of a policeman in the course of his or her duty in Britain could potentially attract a minimum sentence of 25 years or above. On recent average statistics, the killer or killers of Detective Garda Donohue may serve 17 years – if charged with murder and if they are unlucky. The manslaughter of an officer in Britain (beside a host of other convictions) would almost certainly attract a very long sentence. Here as we know, it can be measured as easily in months as in years.

Note, these are simply starting points and judicial discretion is still available across the water. However a judge must begin at these tariffs and explain with good reason why they are deviating from them either upwards or downwards – society has at the very least laid down a firm minimum marker over which the killer crosses at his peril.

One of other greatest scandals in our criminal justice system however is the application of concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing for multiple offenders. In Ireland a judge has total discretion as to whether to impose either a consecutive or a concurrent sentence and Irish judges strongly favour concurrent sentencing. The logic is that that if a person is to be given several consecutive sentences then the final figure will be too high and this will be “unfair” to the convicted person and show a lack “proportionality”. To restore “fairness” concurrent sentencing is therefore practised. It’s win/win for the criminal.

Zero deterrence

No arm of criminal justice is, of course, ever served by concurrent sentencing. No sense of retribution is evident when sentences run concurrently. Each crime becomes diluted and merged into one overall crime thus diminishing the crime and most importantly, each victim and their families. Secondly, why commit one crime when you can commit five and get the same sentence? Concurrent sentencing is a criminal’s charter. It has zero deterrence.

When it comes to our most serious crimes such as sexual offences and homicide, minimum mandatory sentencing is critical if we are to achieve justice for victims, family and the wider community. Society must evidence a minimum level of approbation regardless of individual case circumstances. To continue on our current sentencing path does a grave disservice to society and to the suffering of those such as Fiona Doyle and the memory of Detective Garda Adrian Donohue.

We owe it to them, and ourselves, to now ensure that fresh legislation takes the pressure off our judges and back where it belongs – on the criminals.

John O’Keeffe is a criminologist and special advisor to Advocates for the Victims of Homicide (AdVIC)

Column: ‘Do the crime, do the time’ – serious crimes need serious sentencing>

Analysis: Average sentence for rape is 5 – 7 years>

Read next:

Comments (48 Comments)

  • This article is just completely wrong in its central point about sentencing for murder of a Garda..

    Anyone convicted of the murder of a Garda since 1990 must receive a sentence of 40 years (with remission, they must serve 30 years with no possiblity of the sentence being commuted and temporary release not available except “in grace reasons of a humanitarian nature”). That is set out clearly in the Criminal Justice Act 1990.

    For persons convicted of this offence before 1990, they could face the death penalty which was commuted to a life sentence with a minimum of 30-40 years. The majority of those convicted before or after 1990 were released under the Belfast Agreement; but anyone who did not qualify served the full time and some are still in prison. There is no equivalent differential treatment of manslaughter.

    There is a discussion to be had about sentencing for sexual offences, but this article gives absolutely no evidence that current practice doesn’t act as a deterrent OR that mandatroy sentencing would work to reduce crime (there is ample evidence to the contrary, which I give some links to below).

    Bringing the children of a recently deceased man into an argument which is a based on misunderstanding of the facts is unfortunate.

    For an analysis of how mandatory sentencing works in Ireland and the US, see:
    - Rand Corporation Report – http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR827.html
    - Law Reform Commission Paper – http://www.lawreform.ie/news/consultation-paper-on-mandatory-sentences.357.html

    Reply
  • I hear Mr. Kenny and Mr. Shatter banging on about the murderer’s of Adrian Donohue facing the full rigors of the law. When has any criminal in this country faced the full rigors of the law?? 40 years? As far as I know, and I could well be wrong, no murderer of a Garda has ever served 40 years. And as for the Fiona Doyle case, and many others, disgraceful.

    Reply
  • Good use of bad statistics and http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion to get the proles riled up.

    Reply
  • Well said .!! Didn’t they bring In 10 year mandatory sentence recently for an illegally held firearm…. Never enforced by the judges…

    Reply
  • So true and the offenders say f*ck it might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. You take someone’s life then you shouldn’t have the right to live yours. Only in Ireland.

    Reply
  • we have allowed “precedent” to become the criminals ace up his sleeve, its the political will that is missing!!!

    Reply
  • The justice system should be about protecting the community and society. Not punishment.

    Reply
    • the justice system does not protect society, it up holds the law. it is meant to ensure the scales of justice are balanced, the rights of the victim out weighting the rights of the offender and vice versa. unfortunately we as a society have mucked it up and it would seem to me that everything favours the offender with the victim poorly served.

      Reply
  • Because they are not trained on the matter? Are not privvy to sentencing guidelines etc .

    I wouldn’t be against jury recommendations in serious crimes though.

    The onus is on the judge ultimately, and it’s judges who have failed dramatically in recent high profile cases. This does not require new laws to deal with it, or more severe punishments on the books.

    As for ‘buy one, get 20 free concurrent sentencing’ as you put it, that only happens in district courts where fairly minor crimes are tried, and the majority of offenders dealt with are not necessarily serious criminals. Consecutive sentencing is usually applied when crimes are committed while on bail.
    This concurrent sentencing isn’t a big issue in higher courts that deal with serious crimes.

    Reply
    • im sorry eric but youre totally wrong regarding concurrent sentences being the preserve of the DC. in many cases, child rape being a very good example a person can be convicted of several counts of a charge which have a maximum sentence of life (s4 rape)and only receive a 4 year sentence for each count to run concurrently

      Reply
    • “in many cases, child rape being a very good example a person can be convicted of several counts of a charge which have a maximum sentence of life (s4 rape)and only receive a 4 year sentence for each count to run concurrently”

      Do you have any examples for that?

      Because section 4 rape of a child would normally attract 9 years or over. Btw, it isn’t just rape under section 4 that has a maximum life sentence, vaginal rape by a man of a woman does also.

      The totality principle applies when sentencing multiple offences – each offence is measured, but the overall sentence should be proportionate to the group of offences and the offender.

      Consecutive sentences are mandatory for offences committed while on bail or in prison, otherwise the judge has a discretion. Again, it’s the totality principle, if the sentence is found to be light once each of the individual offences have been measured, some may be ordered to run consecutively.

      Here’s a good example of the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewing and reconfiguring a sentence for child abuse, running in the most part consecutively at 10 years for the rape charges, so as to come out with a total of twenty years imprisonment:

      http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/23fd4a34bad801d980256ec50047a0a8/c58022dc8868c3988025775a002b228d?OpenDocument

      Reply
  • “Put simply, prison sentences cannot and are not handed down of sufficient length to deter criminal activity”.
    Because longer or harsher prison sentences are a greater deterrent? There is zero evidence to back this statement up.

    There is also zero evidence to back up arguments that harsher prison conditions result in lower re-offending rates. In fact it’s the opposite.

    A bigger deterrent is increasing the chances of offenders getting caught.

    Minimum mandatory sentences for sexual offences are a bad idea from the victims’ perspective as it removes any incentive for the defendant to plead guilty and so puts the victim through the ordeal of a trial.

    There already is a mandatory sentence for murder. It’s called a life sentence. I would argue this to be bad thing as due to its severity, juries, particularly in cases involving borderline instances of provocation or intoxication are reluctant to find the accused guilty of murder, but instead find them guilty of manslaughter allowing the judge more flexible sentencing.

    As a criminologist I thought the author ought to know all of this?

    Reply
    • Is he a criminologist? Never heard of him myself. As for the likes of this:

      “Tragically, in Ireland 2013 there is no deed, however heinous, to which the new criminal untermensch will not turn their attention.”

      I don’t believe that any criminologist worthy of the name would stoop to such a facile, tabloid analysis.

      Reply
    • Agree 100%, Voodoo.

      Reply
    • Ignoreland, someone in jail would find it far more difficult to rob a bank than someone outside. Are you saying there’s no evidence for this?

      If career criminals were locked up for good do you need evidence that this would reduce violent crimes? You have only to see people on a regular basis being convicted for the 40th time and still walking free. Isn’t there a lot of evidence that that goes on?

      Your point re minimum mandatory sentences for sexual offences is illogical. If someone is told that he will get a MINIMUM sentence of say 7 years but probably 15 years if he fights it then he still has an incentive. has he not?

      Do we need evidence that a raped women is happier when her rapist gets a proper sentence and not have 3/4 suspended?

      How many people would we need to lock up in Ireland to reduce serious crime (say one that would attract at least 5 years in prison), 500, 1,000? Not many.

      Reply
    • William, any number of misconceptions in that post.

      For one, the general “criminal” population is much more dispersed than you seem to suppose – locking up 5,000 indefinitely isn’t going to make a difference. It’s also easily establishable, by reference to the US, that mass encarceration doesn’t lead to less crime. Btw, if we were to imprison the same proportion of the population as they do, we’d need almost 30,000 prison spaces, at a cost of around €80,000 each per annum.

      “Do we need evidence that a raped women is happier when her rapist gets a proper sentence and not have 3/4 suspended?”

      Yes, we do. The presumption that victim satisfaction is based entirely upon punitive sanctions is by no means unproblematic. Results from the International Criminal Victims Survey that victims are equally concerned with their voices being heard and being kept informed in the process as they were with punishment:

      http://www.heuni.fi/uploads/ojyw1estdwh5b.pdf#page=40

      There have been rape cases, also, for example R v. Dredge and R v. Perks in the UK and at least one case in Ireland, the name of which escapes me at the moment, where the victim has forgiven their attacker and asked for a non-custodial or lenient sentence – but the Courts have taken the view that it’s a crime against society as well as the victim, such that they had to impose a custodial sentence.

      From experience, I have to say that the criminal justice system can be a cold, impersonal place for victims. Harsher punishments don’t fix this, but the use of techniques like restorative justice and victim-offender mediation can lead to better victim satisfaction:

      http://regnet.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/Strang_Repairing%20the%20harm.pdf (esp pg 20)

      The message is simple, unlike what’s being suggested in this article, harming offenders only adds to the harm, and is not the same thing as helping victims.

      In fact, I think, from experience, that emphasising punishment, the idea that the victim’s suffering is only “worth” how long the offender is sentenced for, tends to exacerbate the pain and suffering.

      I personally think that we need a system of victim support from trial for as long as they need it to help them get through – something like the probation service. That, to me would really help victims.

      Quite concerned, also, that AdVic would take advise from someone like O’Keeffe, who, while claiming to be a criminologist, would put his name to an article filled with inaccuracies, mistakes, and emotive penal populism. How the principle of proportionality could be described in good faith as “risible” is beyond me.

      Reply
    • Voodoo, I don’t believe for one second there are 5,000 armed gangsters in Ireland. Where did you get that figure from? It wouldn’t cost €80,000 per year if they were kept in less salubrious conditions. Furthermore by removing these professional career criminals what would the state and businesses save on insurance costs, policing, physical constructs such as steel doors etc, repeat court costs, damage to property, private security personnel, personal injury compensation etc.. If say €80,000,000 was spent to lock up 1,000 people up per year it’s small change in comparison to the €600,000,000 spent on police wages alone. The life in jail deterrent effect would also reduce crime and the number of criminals.

      I never said victim satisfaction was “entirely” based on sentencing. So your points there are irrelevant. The fact that one rape victim forgave her attacker is obviously completely irrelevant. A repeat rapist who was never allowed out couldn’t rape again.

      Reply
    • All due respect, but you’re not displaying much of an understanding of how crime actually works here. It’s really not so simple as “bad people do bad things”, as you seem to believe.

      There’s no single explanation that can take in all types of criminal behaviour, but things like illicit markets, cultures and opportunity, together with the converse: social exclusion and a lack of education and opportunity in the “straight” world.

      Just one example for you: what happens when a major drug gang is broken up, either by the bullet or the Gardai what happens? Reduced drug supply, less violence?

      In general, it’s the exact opposition: a wave of killing as others try to take advantage of the gap in the market and power vacuum, followed by the most vicious and ruthless of the gangs achieving dominance … at least until they slip up or someone even more vicious and ruthless comes along.

      If you still think I’m wrong, just go and have a look at imprisonment rates and violent crime rates for the United States.

      It will take much, much more than long jail sentences to make a meaningful difference to crime, it’s about time people started waking up to this.

      Reply
  • Ridiculous band-wagoning article.

    Mandatory sentencing = bad idea in the extreme.

    The US is the last place to be taking tips from in this area. At the moment over there there is a situation where the more people locked up, the more profit certain individuals make. This skews society in unacceptable ways.

    Of course there’s plenty of loons in Ireland who’ll support destructive ideas which give more corrupting power to the state, the replies on here will show that.

    Sympathies are warranted for the Guard & his family & friends of course, but lets not lost the run of ourselves, such an kneejerk response from a criminologist, a well paid professional who hardly spends a single night in our worst crime ridden areas, is pathetic to say the least, and deeply transparent to any free thinkers.

    Reply
  • You did a grand article for the most part. Except for one bit where you made the most heinous mistake. Using damn statistics to twist a point to your path.

    First of all you mentioned the smallest charge anyone can remember for sexual assault. Then you compare it to AVERAGES.

    “In Australia, the average prison term served for those convicted of aggravated sexual assault is more than six years. According to US Department of Justice figures, across the United States you are likely to serve on average a five-and-a-half year jail term for a “high-end” sexual assault. In England and Wales, a minimum of four years is recommended for such an offence under sentencing guidelines.”

    The English comparison is possibly valid though not directly, the first two are lies, lies and damn statistics. Annoys the tits off me.

    Reply
  • While I think sentencing is often too light, I don’t agree with mandatory minimum sentences.

    What I’d like to see removed is these bloody mitigating factors. It’s too complex. Right now you can bring your sentence down if:
    - you’re sick
    - past good behaviour
    - you have good character references (to show the act was out of character)
    - you said you were sorry, early enough

    I mean, WTF!

    The impact on a victim is the exact same, regardless of who committed the crime. So all this does is to reward the victim less and the perpetrator based on their personal circumstances, and ultimately their status in the community.

    A man who systematically raped his daughter over a number of years gets 7 of 10 years quashed, and released on appeal (only rectified after public outrage) on the same day that a man who belongs in a mental institution gets 8 months for pinching a girl’s bum (not to belittle that assault, I’m merely trying to provide an example of relative sentencing based on ‘mitigating factors’).

    We have situations in this country like two sets of kids who go for a joyride – one pair from a council estate and the latter from a middle class suburb. The former go to St Patricks and the latter put a donation in a poor box and keep it off their record.

    There’s no need for mandatory minimum sentences. There should always be a range of sentencing available. It should be as simple as sentencing based on the severity of the crime. Any mitigating factors should as an apology can count towards your first parole hearing. Yes, a repeat offender should have extra years added on, but NO, a first time offender with a priest, a doctor, and the county football manager speaking on his behalf shouldn’t get less years than the guideline sentencing. Sick? Tough shoite – it didn’t seem to prevent you from doing the crime. Mountjoy is across the road from a fabulous state of the art hospital.

    Unfortunately, we have a demented system where parole begins almost before the sentence, with a reward for good behaviour in advance of going behind bars. Let it count towards judging rehabilitation afterwards, but not before.

    Lastly, and this comes from a friend who spent time in prison, our prison system is full of people with mental health issues that need a very different type of treatment. We need to start dealing with mental health and addiction problems that are at the root of a lot of crime.

    Reply
  • every day in the court reports you see people with over 50 convictions. they simply shouldnt be on the streets.

    the current system of buy one, get 20 free concurrent sentencing has to go.

    if you can be convicted by a jury of your peers why cant the jury set the minimum tariff?

    Reply
  • What if anyone sentenced for violent crime for a second time had any previous sentences added in again, e.g. sentenced to 7 years for armed robbery, let out and the guy commits another armed robbery and gets say 9 years so he then has to server the first sentence and the second or 16 years and if he does it again then the 16 years plus the 3rd sentence? Most criminals have a multitude of convictions. It’s these career criminals that must be locked away permanently.

    Reply
    • @ William,

      A lot of people spouting about the 3 strike rule and capital punishment. It doesn’t work as a deterrent. Had we had it here then last week more than one Garda would have been killed
      Your suggestion is probably the mosts sensible and innovative one I’ve heard regarding the issue of repeat offenders and two Gobsheens give you thumbs down. I despair

      Reply
    • John, they might not have been Gobsheens but career criminals. :)

      Reply
  • Fools 30/01/13 #

    No justice for victims in this country our judical system is a joke. Zero toleramce is needed. Put fear back into the law. Death sentences for murder and 40yrs min for serious child abuse and rape.

    Reply
    • I don’t know how anyone can red thumb you, I guess our society has become immune from cold blooded murder, rape and child abuse. We’ve become acceptable to these crimes getting little to no sentences so we see 40 years as too extreme. It isn’t for these crimes, you take a life, prison for life! You rape someone you have no right, I know rape can be tricky in the sense of women lying sometimes or confusion about it being consensual after a few drinks etc but if convicted of violent rape you’ve ruined someone’s life, your rights are gone too, lock em up for good. Child abuse, why are we so lenient on child abuse! We have to protect our children. Your an adult and u sexually abuse a child, throw away the key I say?

      Reply
    • They have that kind of sentencing in the US. What has it gotten them? More people in prison for longer terms than any other country in the world. A $44,000/year cost per prisoner. A prison-industrial complex second to none. Companies making big money running private prisons.
      Are the streets safer? Hardly. Are their white collar criminals doing long terms? Hardly. Is justice served? Hardly.
      Think again. You have the one of the lowest murder rates in the world. Sorry, but those are the facts. You are (until the Gardai are eliminated due to budget cuts) in one of the safest societies in the world. There’s really no call to go screaming for the hangman’s noose, unless you’re one of the sick people who find such activities “stimulating”.

      Reply
  • You don’t actually realise this but The people have tremenduous power if theres a public opinion against this it will happen , this guy is going to get life .

    Reply
  • Lenient sentencing is the direct result of soft European leftie ideology. Everyone always calls the americans stupid, well at least they have the death penalty and that doesn’t sound so stupid to me.

    Reply
    • they’re not stupid, very clever actually….

      just corrupt, & verging on totalitarian.

      What ‘lenient’ sentencing are you referring to?

      Reply
    • @eric foley, what lenient sent

      Reply
    • Sentencing is he talking about? Gee I dunno, have u read the news lately? How is Larry murphy by the way? I wonder what poor woman he has in his sights nowadays. How the hell is an evil (unt like him allowed out into society again? Can u answer me this please?

      Reply
    • The Larry Murphy scare is largely based on suspicion of other crimes he wasn’t convicted of….. & scaremongering. Yes, I think some people deserve harsher sentences than is dished out, including Larry Murphy. His days of committing any crimes are over, as he is a seriously monitored individual. I would be more concerned about the psychos that as as of yet unknown, or that someone else may have committed some of these crimes & still be at large. But by & large Ireland is still one of the safest countries in the world, &thankfully incidents like that poor Police chap the other day are extremely rare.

      But there is no epidemic of leniency as is made out in this article. There is no ‘criminals’ winning the battle against law & order because that is to completely mis-represent what is really going on.

      I feel this article preys on the emotions & fears of ordinary people in its premises, and the knee-jerk responses demonstrate this perfectly.

      Reply
    • No surprise they have the death penalty in America. They have drones. They practice extra-judicial executions of their own citizens. They have weekly massacres. They have a love for their m.f. guns. They have a greater portion of their population in prison than any other country in the world. Why is that? Are they morally corrupt? Are they too liberal?
      No. They’re just stupid cowboys who believe comic-book heroes are real, the devil is an actual being that walks the earth and the best remedy for massacres is more guns in the hands of more people.

      Reply
  • The problem is, As far as I am concerned, Is the inconsistency in sentencing by judges.The tariffs are there for some crimes,But ,For some reason the judges ignore them almost to the point you would think they were making it up as they go along.Early release is abused because of limited prison space and that has been a problem for far to long.It needs addressing and it needs addressing sooner rather than later. Public health and security seem to be secondary issues today. Why I have no idea.Hardly for the lack of publicity, is it? I personally believe that a person convicted of the murder of a Garda should serve at least 40 yrs.That is the one of the options I believe should be applied .The other is the less popular….a rope.

    Reply
  • If it cost €80,000 to lock up one habitual criminal for a year, what’s the savings on guards time, courts time, free legal aid and least of all the innocent victims these people hurt every day they are on the streets.

    Reply
  • If it cost €80,000 to lock up one habitual criminal for a year, what the savings on

    Reply

Add New Comment